چکیده:
The method of the Shi'ite and Sunnite Hadith scholars is to quote the narrations by naming the chain of transmitters. In the meantime, Sheikh Sadouq, one of the most prominent Shi'ite Hadith scholars, has reported the narrations in his book "Man lā yaḥḍuruhu-l-faqīh” with incomplete chain of transmitters (mursal). Although, later on, he tried to respond to the assumed critics with writing a "Mashikha", his Mursalāt that have been quoted without mentioning their narrators with such words like "qāla" or "ruviyah", has been controversial among the scholars. Those who believed in the authenticity of the sanad of the narrative abandoned all the hadiths of Sadouq without the narrator and those who believed in the authenticity of the issuing of the narrations considered them authentic. In the meantime, Imam Khomeini took a moderate view. The findings of this study indicated that from Imam Khomeini's point of view, firstly, only dogmatic Mursalāt of Sheikh Sadouq with the word "qāla" are authentic. Secondly, Sadouq is not only a Hadith scholar, but also is a scholar superior to Najjashi and Tousi. Therefore, his dogmatic Mursalāt indicate that the narrators removed from the sanad are authentic. Thirdly, Sadouq is not a mujtahid in its conventional meaning among the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence specifically the later ones. Therefore, he has not quoted the dogmatic mursalāt with guess and speculation. Fourthly, the dogmatic mursalāt of Sheikh Sadouq counterweights that of Ibn Abi 'Umayr. Fifth, not only his mursalāt are equal to his Masānid, but also they are preferred to them.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The findings of the research indicate that, from Imam Khomeini's point of view, firstly, only the definite mursalat of Sadooq – expressed with “Qal” – are reliable; secondly, Sadooq is not only a hadith scholar but also a superior rijal scholar than Najashi and Tusi, therefore his definite mursalat indicate the authentication of the narrators omitted from the sanad; thirdly, Sadooq was not a mujtahid in the conventional sense among Usulis and especially their later scholars, so he did not narrate definite mursalat based on conjecture or suspicion; fourthly, the definite mursalat of Sadooq are equivalent to the mursalat of Ibn Abi Umair; fifthly, the definite mursalat of Sadooq are considered equal to his masanid and even preferred over them.
He explicitly distinguished between the two types of Sadooq’s *marsal* narrations (“Ruwi” and “Qal”), and considered the definitive *marsal* narrations of Sadooq, which are reported with the word “Qal,” to be valid, and wrote:1 The *marsal* narrations of Sadooq are of two kinds: first, narrations that are expressed with “Ruwi,” these *marsal* narrations are not reliable, because although Sadooq was truthful in transmitting narrations, the narrator is weak; second, narrations that are expressed with “Qal,” these types of *marsal* narrations are valid, because a personality like Sadooq only sends and attributes narrations when the narrator is trustworthy and he has confidence in him, therefore relying on and trusting Sadooq’s narration is correct (Imam Khomeini, 1418, vol.
Tracing and inductive study of Sadooq’s performance also indicates that this attribution is not based on *ijtihad*, because Sadooq either relied on the *marasils* of Ibn Abi Umair or independently reached this certainty, which, in a way, is an authentication of the intermediaries in his view (Imam Khomeini, 1385, vol.
(
, 
, 
)
